Game On

I will not dispute that happened.  Its the first I heard about it.  However, that was against our orders.  And, I am sure anyone in a large organization, (inside or outside the game) knows it is hard to get the message out accurately to everyone, despite best efforts to do so.  In this game, we are for the most part restricted to IGMs to contact each other.  So it is likely the message got missed in large number of incoming messages.   It does not excuse the action, and if Abgerstreift wishes for compensation, I will do so myself.   That is...if Curse has finally decided to let roller/Spirit live, and will allow him to move his cities as soon as the game allows him to do so.  If not, I will hold compensation until after I am sure Curse and Valar are no longer at odds.  That is, if H? does not raze my cities out of the game before that happens. 

I want to add, that even though we have had war declared on us by at least 3 alliances (last I noticed), we have agreed to leave cities of smaller members of these alliances alone, as long as they are not helping their leaders attack us.  I do not know what else we can do in that regard.

Dakota Strider wrote: Now I really hope you are not comparing our actions in protecting roller/Spirit as picking on Curse.  Our two alliances are almost equal in size.  They manage to raze 4 of his cities (with help).  And we did not attack Curse cities.  Outside of roller/Spirit, we did not even send spells or diplomat attacks on their cities, that I am aware of.  If that happened, it was someone that did not receive the order to leave them alone.  And r/S had justification to strike back, as he was the one targeted.  (edited for grammar)

I wish to avoid the rest of the rhetoric but I do want to clarify at least one point, which obviously you are simply unaware of.  But Valar did indeed use diplomats on Curse cities.  And here comes the good part, Pshark attacked the city of a much smaller Curse player Abgerstreift during this.

However, like a good man, he took it in stride and said nothing in the global community.  Bravo to him. 

Sorry, but I felt the need to address the inaccuracy.

Very well written BellusRex.  And I would agree that it makes a compelling argument, the kind you would hear in a courtroom by a defense lawyer.  However, you could turn your premise around 180 degrees around, and make the same argument why H?, Lorre and AA are being just as hypocritical as you are inferring that Valar is. 

You also support your argument with vague claims of misdeeds that apparently Valar has done.  Attacks on smaller players?   We have the duq incident.  One player, who shortly after was expelled from the alliance, even after having a long history of loyalty to his companions.    Granted it did not happen immediately, but we tried to give him opportunities to change his path.   I would say that was much more fair, and just than the type of justice called for by the shrill voices on GC.

And it is interesting how you claim "a majority of players do not hold" our views.  Did you recently take an Illyriad wide poll that I somehow missed?   The few times I take a look at GC, I almost always see the same two dozen players (to be generous) and several different newbies.  And most of those same people show up here in the forums, along with a few others that do not participate in GC.    I do not know what the total player count is in Illyriad, but as I write this, I see there are almost 1400 logged on.  I know there are more, but it is hard to do a head count when you have people with more than one account, and accounts being sat for extended periods of time.    So lets just say there are only the 1400 currently logged on.   And lets be real generous and say that there are 50 people in GC all the time (and on these forums), that support the way you think.  I think that is very arrogant for you to suggest those 50 people represent the majority of players in Illyriad. 

I would contend, that a majority of players, cannot stand the way GC behaves, and avoids it.  Otherwise there would be a much larger presence of people that we would see talking when we logon to GC.   So, perhaps it would be much safer to make the assumption that a majority of the 1400 players do NOT agree with what the consensus is on GC.    I mean, as long as we are making assumptions, I think that is the more logical choice.

Now I really hope you are not comparing our actions in protecting roller/Spirit as picking on Curse.  Our two alliances are almost equal in size.  They manage to raze 4 of his cities (with help).  And we did not attack Curse cities.  Outside of roller/Spirit, we did not even send spells or diplomat attacks on their cities, that I am aware of.  If that happened, it was someone that did not receive the order to leave them alone.  And r/S had justification to strike back, as he was the one targeted. 

Others may claim that what we did to Champs when they were destroying a much smaller alliances cities was unjust.   In that regard, it seemed we were following what those in GC preach, in helping to protect a smaller player.  We agree that StJude started the fight, at least with words.  But AA is the one that decided to start the war.   And we stood by as AA and his allies beat on KT for a while.  As StJude will admit, he probably deserved it.  But when KT sued for peace, and AA kept  attacking, we did the same thing that those that GC favors in the past have accepted as fair and just.  The problem that the GC crowd has,  is 1) Valar actually was the one that broke up the fight and 2) one of the GC favorites AA was the one that got his nose bloodied, just a little bit.   IF the two parties roles had been reversed, everyone in GC would have been overjoyed.

You will note, that Valar did not attack Champ towns in anyway.  Before the war that started 2 days ago when P A and Champs declared war on us, name the times Valar has attempted to raze another active player's cities out of the game?  Yet there are many examples of those that hold the favor of GC that do just that.  I guess it is very much like real life, that those that control the media, attempt to control the truth. 

The thing is, those of you on GC who wish to claim you play with a higher sense of justice and honor than those of us you vilify, need to hold yourselves to a higher standard.  You cannot claim that Valar or our friends are doing something wrong, and then do the exact same thing or worse, and still retain your halos.   Valar members and other players that do not spend a majority of our time on GC do not going around telling other people how to play the game, except when the same people try to play God and dictate to us what is right or wrong.   When we ask that you behave in the way you claim we should behave, it is not us that are the hypocrites.   How can you expect anyone to follow these instigators' sense of honor and justice, when they ignore it when it suits their desires?   

So those of you that want to play this like a military version of SIMS, or some other social game, that is your right.  But when you try to force everyone else to play your style, by trying to impose "GC Rules", you have a vocal minority of players, trying to tell a normally silent majority of players what to do.  And I am sorry, but I do not pay my prestige fees to you, or anyone else that frequents the social part of the game.   When the GM's and developers put a rule down in writing, than I will be sure to comply.  But perhaps the reason they have not put your rules into effect, is because they do not agree. 

I am sure many parts of this will be taken out of context to try to make points against what I have said.  So be it, the only people that will be fooled by that, are the same people that believe what our detractors say already. 

(edited for grammar)


Edited by Dakota Strider - 25 Sep 2011 at 21:13

HM doesn't "half apologize" for anything, you're using something he said. Spinning it and then making it look like you are in the right and they are in the wrong AGAIN!

Furthermore it is slightly biased. It was also actually factual.
Everything i commented on is absolutely true.
So i admit that it was slightly biased. However it was also truthful.


Edited by (EOM) Harry - 25 Sep 2011 at 20:44